Over the past few weeks, digital Catholic social hubs have been ablaze with passionate debates sparked by Pope Francis’s remarks concerning other religions as “paths to God.” It is not my intention here to offer commentary on the pontiff’s words, as CWR contributors Larry Chapp and Christopher Altieri have already competently performed that task. Regardless of what one makes of the debacle, magisterial teaching resoundingly affirms that religious dialogue has its rightful place within Catholic life. And, fortunately, the Church has well-established guidelines for this engagement, as outlined in such sources as the Second Vatican Council’s Nostra Aetate, John Paul II’s encyclical Redemptoris Missio, the curial document Dialogue and Proclamation, and Joseph Ratzinger’s Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions.
Rather, I want to showcase what authentic dialogue with non-Christians ought to look like through a privileged lens that has heretofore received scant attention. This consists of the long-term, real-world exchange between Pope Benedict XVI and atheist mathematician Piergiorgio Odifreddi, published in 2022, in Italian, under the title In ammino alla ricerca della verità: Lettere e colloqui con Benedetto XVI. Between 2013 and 2021, the pope and the atheist met face-to-face four times and exchanged a considerable number of letters that covered a wide range of issues. It turns out that many of these revolved around themes pertinent to this column, “God’s Two Books.”
A personalized “Court of the Gentiles”
Before proceeding any further, it may be helpful to pause and consider a potential point of confusion. I opened this essay by referencing Pope Francis’s controversial remarks that unfolded in the context of inter-religious dialogue. However, this dialogue involving Benedict did not transpire between people of different faiths, but between a pope and an atheist. As providence would have it, Benedict had already anticipated this point in his 2009 Christmas address to the Roman Curia. It is instructive that the pope began his commentary on a positive note, underscoring that elements of goodness can be encountered outside the Church’s visible structures:
[W]e must be concerned that human beings do not set aside the question of God, but rather see it as an essential question for their lives. We must make sure that they are open to this question and to the yearning concealed within it. Here I think naturally of the words which Jesus quoted from the Prophet Isaiah, namely that the Temple must be a house of prayer for all the nations (cf. Is 56: 7; Mk 11: 17). Jesus was thinking of the so-called “Court of the Gentiles” which he cleared of extraneous affairs so that it could be a free space for the Gentiles who wished to pray there to the one God, even if they could not take part in the mystery for whose service the inner part of the Temple was reserved. A place of prayer for all the peoples: by this he was thinking of people who know God, so to speak, only from afar—who are dissatisfied with their own gods, rites and myths and who desire the Pure and the Great, even if God remains for them the ‘unknown God” (cf. Acts 17: 23). They had to pray to the unknown God, yet in this way they were somehow in touch with the true God, albeit amid all kinds of obscurity.
As Ratzinger often observed in his ministry, Christians throughout history have consistently held that non-believers can have partial access to the one true God through the grace of Christ operative in their own traditions (Aquinas described this presence under the banner of the natural virtue of religion). At the same time, however, he underscored the importance of evangelization, stressing that not all faiths are equal and that not every element within other religions stems from grace (a dynamic documented lucidly in the Ratzinger-led CDF’s declaration Dominus Iesus).
Bearing in mind these principles, Benedict noted something further in his 2009 address. Like St. Paul at the Areopagus, he recognized the importance of engaging in dialogue with those who have no faith at all. In the absence of an official organ of the Vatican devoted to this enterprise, the pontiff proceeded to offer a suggestion:
I think that today too the Church should open a sort of “Court of the Gentiles” in which people might in some way latch on to God, without knowing him and before gaining access to his mystery, at whose service the inner life of the Church stands. Today, in addition to interreligious dialogue, there should be a dialogue with those to whom religion is something foreign, to whom God is unknown and who nevertheless do not want to be left merely Godless, but rather to draw near to him, albeit as the Unknown.”
Over the years to come, the vision outlined here would become the impetus for the establishment of a Vatican department dedicated to this dialogue, and Odifreddi would describe his ongoing exchange with the emeritus pontiff as “a sort of small private Courtyard of the Gentiles.” This was not Benedict’s first sustained dialogue with a prominent secular figure, having penned The Dialectics of Secularization: On Reason and Religion alongside Jürgen Habermas and Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam with Marcello Pera. Nevertheless, the Odifreddi exchange stands out for being his last such venture, offering a window into the pontiff’s theological vision in the final phase of his life.
Benedict’s comportment as a model for conducting genuine dialogue
It is Odifreddi who did most of the talking in this “personal courtyard.” Already in retirement due to declining health, Benedict had limited energy for writing lengthy letters. Even so, Benedict’s comments are a master class in how meaningful dialogue with non-believers ought to unfold. Despite his ailments and a continuous stream of visitors eager to see him, the emeritus pontiff showed his interlocutor that he truly cared. This is evident in the fact that he took the time to read Odifreddi’s unsolicited missives, which were often lengthy and meandering. At times, many months would pass before Benedict replied to a lengthy letter from the mathematician.
At one point, the pontiff apologized for taking so long to write back: “I did not want to write without first having read your text,” humbly submitting the excuse, “The fact that texts and books arrive almost daily, needing to be read with a certain urgency, has continually delayed this reading” (December 19, 2014). Benedict sometimes expressed regret that his health issues had limited the time he could devote to their discussions. On one occasion, he noted: “This delay is caused by the fact that I always hoped to read one of your books to deepen our dialogue a little further. But old age and the decline of my strength continue, even as daily duties remain unchanged” (December 22, 2015).
Even when he did write back, Benedict’s messages to Odifreddi were often quite short. Yet, even then, they were always heartfelt and included something of substance. In one correspondence, he reaffirmed his previous remarks on how non-Christians can connect with the true God in various ways, conveying to Odifreddi that the two of them, notwithstanding their differences, “seek the path of truth in different ways.” Alluding to another recurring theme in his oeuvre, Benedict then added that the truth “is never simply found, as truth always remains greater than us”—in other words, not so much something we possess as something that we must allow to possess us (December 22, 2015).
Not only did Benedict demonstrate charity by patiently hearing his compainion out, but also in that he respected his interlocutor enough to respond with penetrating, even critical, commentary. In his most lengthy letter in this exchange, Benedict began by thanking Odifreddi “for having carefully engaged with my book and, thereby, with my faith,” describing this as “in large part what I intended in my speech to the Roman Curia for the Christmas of 2009.” The pope also expressed gratitude to this atheist counterpart “for the honest manner in which you treated my text, sincerely seeking to do it justice.”
Yet Benedict did not let this cordiality prevent him from voicing his critical reactions when he considered it necessary. Driven by the belief that everyone has a right to the message of the gospel, the pope proceeded to offer criticism: “My overall judgment of your book is, however, rather mixed. I read some parts with enjoyment and benefit. In other parts, on the other hand, I was surprised by a certain aggressiveness and recklessness in the arguments.” With due respect for his esteemed interlocutor, Benedict continued: “Most Illustrious Professor, my critique of your book is partly harsh. But frankness is part of dialogue, for only in this way can knowledge grow. You have been very frank, and so you will accept that I am as well” (August 30, 2013, VI).
Specifically, the pontiff called out Odifreddi for exhibiting insufficient epistemic humility. Although the mathematician had been the one to initiate this dialogue with the pope, the demeanor of his interlocutor’s writing made it difficult for Benedict to see how it originated from a genuine openness to learn and be challenged:
This is the decisive point in my dialogue with you, a point I will return to at the end: I would expect that someone who seriously questions would still recognize that “perhaps” of which, following Martin Buber, I spoke at the beginning of my book. Both interlocutors must continue to search. However, it seems to me that you have instead dogmatically interrupted the search and no longer seek, but rather only claim to instruct me.
As we witness in this text, Benedict was never one to refrain from speaking his mind. And, yet, in contrast with what unfortunately often happens today, he always made a concerted effort to find common ground with his conversation partners—whether they were other Catholics, members of non-Christian religions, or atheists. Thus, even as he had some pointed criticisms, the pontiff shared:
In any case, I highly value the fact that you, through your engagement with my Introduction to Christianity, have sought such an open dialogue with the faith of the Catholic Church and that, despite all the contrasts, convergences are not entirely lacking in what matters most (August 30, 2013, VI).
Indeed, in a letter from the subsequent year, we can see that the pontiff’s earlier effort to hold Odifreddi accountable for his rash comments had borne some fruit, as this time the pope’s response was much more positive: “I am pleased that you remain unsettled by the question of God and Jesus Christ. I dare say that this unease is precisely the posture that the Church Fathers called quaerere Deum (seeking God) and which they considered the essential posture of man before the divine mystery” (December 19, 2014).
Illustrating Benedict’s approach: the question of salvation for non-Catholics
As I noted above, Benedict and his atheist interlocutor traded barbs on a variety of issues. Some of these were related to the book of nature, yet for the sake of space I’ll leave their debate concerning creation and evolution for another time. I will concentrate here on a matter related to the book of Sacred Scripture.
Odifreddi took issue with many things in the Bible, but perhaps his greatest grievance centered on what he perceived to be its inhumane stance regarding the salvation of non-believers. It is not hard to find verses in Scripture that lend themselves to the conclusion that Hell is much more densely populated than Heaven, like Christ’s statements to the effect that “many are called, but few are chosen” (Mt 22:14) and that “the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many” (Mt 7:13). Rehearsing arguments from renowned Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel, Odifreddi contended that the existence of a just and benevolent deity is irreconcilable with Catholicism’s (purported) teaching that God created the majority of humanity only to send them to Hell for all eternity. If the Lord is truly all-powerful and all-good, so the argument goes, then he would find a way to save souls even if they never arrived at belief in Jesus.
In response, it is noteworthy that the pontiff does not entirely reject this critique. Rather, he clarifies the view in question stems not from Christian dogma itself but from one idiosyncratic and problematic interpretation of the biblical testimony. Specifically, Benedict notes that the phrase “send them to Hell” reveals the Lutheran background of Gödel’s claim. Luther posited the doctrine of servum arbitrium (“bondage of the will”), according to which man is only God’s mule, predestined by God to salvation or damnation with no free will in the matter. Erasmus of Rotterdam, meanwhile, countered with traditional Catholic teaching, summarized by Benedict as follows: “In this regard, precisely on the basis of Catholic dogma, it is not possible to say that God created the majority of mankind only to send them to Hell. According to Catholic doctrine, it is man with his free will who decides his eternal destiny.”
What is the official position of the Catholic Church regarding this issue? Benedict recalls the axiom Extra ecclesiam salus nulla est (“Outside the Church, there is no salvation”), while also acknowledging that becoming Catholic “is impossible for a large portion of humanity.” Describing the great missionary and pastoral fervor of the 19th and early 20th century as best “explained from this perspective,” Benedict observes something else: In tandem with growing awareness of the world’s vastness and the consequent impossibility of getting everyone to become Catholic, theological developments emerged that “tried to show under what conditions non-Catholics could, in fact, behave like Catholics and still go to Heaven…to show what the essence of Catholicism consists of, attainable by men of goodwill even without actually knowing Catholic doctrine” (September 18, 2018).
In this particular letter, Benedict does not elaborate further on how to square the fact that God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4) with the truth that “there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5). Nor does he proffer his personal opinion regarding the quantity of souls that he expects to meet in Heaven or Hell. These are topics that he broached elsewhere (notably, in the encyclical Spe Salvi). The salient point for present purposes is how Benedict’s handling of this topic exemplifies his broader strategy when it comes to engaging non-believers about challenging subjects.
This pontiff would go out of his way to find common ground and appreciating others’ concerns, all while demonstrating an unwavering commitment to traditional Catholic doctrine and being unafraid to correct misconceptions when necessary.
Conclusion
As we have observed in this brief survey of some of his exchanges with a renowned atheist, Benedict’s approach to addressing difficult topics is noteworthy in both its erudition and its poise. The pontiff certainly matches his intellectual counterpart in scholarly rigor, but he also excels him insofar as he pursues the truth within a broader horizon and a greater generosity of spirit. In this way, Benedict’s manner of engaging others distinguishes itself from what we typically observe among non-believers and believers alike.
So often in contemporary society, dialogue is exploited for the sake of winning arguments or scoring points. By contrast, this pontiff considered fraternal dialogue essential not only for the sake of propagating the gospel, but also because it contributes to “the perpetual self-purification of Christianity.” On this note, it seems only fitting to let Benedict have the final word:
An important function of theology is to keep religion tied to reason and reason to religion. Both functions are of essential importance to humanity. In my dialogue with Habermas, I showed that there are pathologies of religion and–no less dangerous–pathologies of reason. Both need one another, and keeping them continuously connected is an important task of theology (August 30, 2013, III).
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
How refreshing to be reminded that, just a short time ago, we had as Pope a brilliant mind and a man equally as equipped who had zeal enough to defend the Catholic Church and her teachings.
Yet, dear Deacon Edward, Benedict XVI is the doorway through which the current anti-Apostolix magisteria has gained control.
Certainly, as dear Dr M. J. Ramage so nicely argues, B16 was a true gentleman scholar exemplifying a winsome firmness in responding to the critiques of a scholarly unbeliever. His predecessor, Pope John Paul II, although an equally distinguished academic, was more apostolically forthright; as can be seen in the over 3,500 citations from The New Testament in his Catechism of the Catholic Church.
To me JPII seems to have been the last Pope in the Apostolic tradition, who like Saint Peter (e.g. in 2 Peter 3:17b) contiued the severe warnings given by our LORD Jesus Christ: “. . beware that you are not carried away by the error of the lawless and lose your own stability.”
Saint Paul insists every Christian needs to be able to use The Sword of The Holy Spirit – that is The Word of God. The author of Hebrews instructs us that God’s Word is: “. . living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit – – able to judge the thoughts & intentions of the heart.”
Experientially, in using Scriptures correctly, like JPII, we’re assisted by The Living God. It is never simply a textual, apologetic, or philosophical exercise.
The words of our LORD Jesus Christ, given us by the school of beloved Apostle John (John 10:27-28), are salutary:
“My sheep hear My voice. I know them, they follow Me. I give them eternal life, they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of My hand.”
As well as the gentleness evidenced by B16, the Gospel always mandates a forthright proclamation; so searching the heart and separating between soul & spirit.
In my experience, more unbelievers and careless sinners have been converted by spiritual truth firmly proclaimed, than by extended, inconclusive dialogues.
Following Jesus, our first & most serious message is always: “Repent & believe The Gospel!”
Praise GOD! There’re are still some Catholic clergy & lay who get this.
From memory, it was rather Ratzinger’s job to compile the catechism, from different contributors and fusion the contributions into one cohesive work…
The entrance of the Catholic Church into the world council of churches was taken by ppJPII against Ratzinger’s advice… leading to the disaster of Ecumenical New Church.
One of the strengths of this forum CWR is its ability to host intelligent contribution and keep recognizable different lines of thought in place.
Yes, we don’t have to join other groups “ecclesially” or “ecclesiastically” in order to have witness; the bugbaboo -bull beggar- of synodalism is the making of joining as necessary and even imperative/ordained.
In order to reach Odifreddi or get to anything that needed to be addressed, Benedict didn’t have to go and join the Humanist Association or assemble a concilium of denominations.
‘ The pope also expressed gratitude to this atheist counterpart “for the honest manner in which you treated my text, sincerely seeking to do it justice.” ‘
Dear Elias,
I fully agree with your comment.
Seeking to handle the ecclesial situation intellectually and spiritually has taken me over 30 years. Lefebvre understood that the sentimentalism of the Novos Ordo was a key tool used to drive a wedge between praxis and Catholic Truth. The Ratzinger “good samaritain” non-solution to the senselessness of baptizing pagans under Ecumenical New Church (your comment below) is an example. Remember Bergoglio’s bishop friends publicly boasting they “never committed a baptism” in 20 years in the Amazon?
From a perspective of Faith and Intellectual credibility, Lefebvre is the only reasonable response to the situation. All the rest is Liberalism, Sentimentalism: Modernist Apostasy…
God bless you fellow Catholic (imho embroiled in liberal fudge… an intellectual game we can play for only so long).
You won’t get any disagreement from me, Dr. Rice, with what you’ve written here.
Thank you for this piece. I was surprised NOT to see Ratzinger’s key affirmation that there are many religions but only two Covenants. This argument lead him to affirm that Jews are covered by the first Covenant if they cannot recognise Christ.
The tragedy of Assisi – which is the tragedy of the Catholic Church accepting a seat at the World Council of Religions – remains a most dramatic example of Praxis versus Doctrine. It is as if the debate from the council chamber was never accepted as definitive but merely a beginning for Ecumenical New Church to aligne the infiltrated Catholic Institution with Freemasonic One World objectives.
1958-2024 remains for this reader the period of Modernist Apostasy of Ecumenical New Church. Having discovered Marcel Lefebvre, I have no longer any doubts on the matter. Church history is divided into periods. This – ours – is the most terrible.
Schism is never God’s will.
Explain that to the Sanhedrin.
They illegitimately sentenced a schismatic Blasphemer from Nazareth. He rose from dead.
Keep your eye on Marcel 😉
I will keep my eye on the Saints. 😇
So are you critiquing the Church from within or from without?
Are we within or without the Church in embrasing Bergoglio’s praxis and practically betraying 2000 years of Sacred Tradition?
Your analysis is Before Francis. In the year 11 After Francis, there is a New Ways Ministry:
Yesterday, “Sister Jeannine Gramick arranged the meeting (with Pope Francis) after reading the Vatican declaration Dignitas Infinita, released in April. Although the document emphasized that the Church treat all people with dignity and respect, it also contained a condemnation of medical care for transgender people who transition. She wanted Pope Francis to hear directly from transgender and intersex Catholics and those who support them, so she contacted the pontiff, and he eagerly accepted the opportunity.”
“The people who provided testimony to the pope participated in a gathering earlier this year where they shared their personal stories with an invited group of U.S. Catholic bishops. New Ways Ministry has held two such meetings, in 2023 and 2024, for bishops to learn about and discuss LGBTQ+ topics with theologians, other scholars, medical professionals, pastoral ministers, and LGBTQ+ people themselves.”
“I am grateful to Pope Francis that he was willing to listen to the experiences of intersex and transgender people,” said Sister Gramick. “It is only by listening to stories of these individuals, as well as the individuals who care for and about them, that the Church will be able to fully hear the voice of the Holy Spirit calling the Catholic community to break out of old, ill-informed teachings and practices.”
“We hope Pope Francis’ example of listening to LGBTQ+ people will inspire other Catholic leaders to do the same,” said Executive Director Francis DeBernardo. “By their own admission, the Catholic hierarchy has issued pronouncements about gender and sexuality without first consulting the people most directly connected to these topics. Pope Francis is showing the church a new way of developing its teaching.”
The only way that I manage to integrate such 100% spot on comments is having accepted that this period in Church History – which began before me and may only terminate after me – is Modernist Apostasy.
We must wait until the next Conclave to see if the Barque changes its course!
The way I reconcile this pontificate is by meditating on Gethsemane:
“Father, if thou art willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.”
God’s will is that we welcome true Faith: adhesion of all one’s intelligence to unchanging perenial Truth as preserved in the deposit of faith until AD 1958. Everything taught until AD 1958 is Catholic Truth. It cannot cease to be Catholic Truth. Period. However, due to the freemasonic infiltration of the institutions, the episcopacy, the Praxis and Magisterium at variance with everything before 1958 is be considered a consequence of that infiltration so greatly warned of prior to 1958. By reading the Council of Trent, the pre-1958 catechisms, and the magisterial writings up to 1958, I have the guarantee of the adhesion of my intelligence to Catholic Truth. What more could a Catholic seek? We seek the Lord where he is certain to be found!
“We seek the Lord where he is certain to be found!”
That is in the heart of every genuine believer.
Saint Paul instructs us in II Corinthians 13:5 that we are counterfeits if we don’t experience that.
Pope Benedict XVI is a wonderful man, and was a marvelous Bishop, Cardinal and Pope.
Pope Benedict XVI was a brave Pope during the Great Modernist Apostasy who strove hard to keep the sinking Ecumenical New Church Wreckage on course. His hermeneutic of continuity failed before he stepped aside without abdication.
I even forgot he was called Emeritus; I remember him always as Pope Benedict.
Your particular comment here doesn’t integrate as do your other ones since how could the continuity hermenuetic “fail” -inter alia- had he moved “without abdicating”?
And using the above account as an example, his thoughts are as alive and vivifying as when he first shared them.
PPBXVI strove to make the Vatican II rupture viable, but it was increasingly clear that he failed. He recognised himself in an interview of the impossibility he experienced in striving to integrate the council’s call to religious tolerance with the missionary call of the gospel. He expressed frustration at not having been able to resolve this problem; his notion of a hermeneutic of continuity between the Catholic Truth of the deposit of faith pre 1958 and Post-Conciliarism had failed on precisely the point of lefebvre’s contention.
In the interview at the end of the seewald autobiography PPBXVI states that he did not abdicate.
Hope that was clearer Elias, of the issues as I understand them.
Elias, this piece links to one original interview on the thorny and unresolvable issue which means the attempted hermeneutic of continuity failed:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-emeritus-benedict-says-church-is-now-facing-a-two-sided-deep-crisis
Thanks. I had book-marked that article at the time. That’s eight years I see. Here’s what I understand.
Continuity means that the Church’s teaching, faith and mission, are perennial and there’s no break. Hermeneutic means it is incumbent on us to be true to the Spirit in our faculties and duties. When Benedict says he didn’t abdicate he is attesting this continuity within himself.
In the LIFESITE report Benedict identifies a resolution of “the problem of rupture” beginning in the story of the Good Samaritan. It’s pointing to a continuum of charity. It may not yet be faith but it is an essential part in the Salvific disposing. Going a little further, he indicates that the tech age can tend to suffocate charity with its fast-going conclusions, immediacy, ubiquity, exclusion of probity; appropriated by various leaders.
Benedict is not merely explaining something he is doing a work of mercy and mission. It is an evangelical statement.
No salvation outside the Church is a shorthand for the dispensing of grace through the Church. In the most extreme description of this, we have baptism by desire and baptism by blood: the non-believer only hears of the Sacraments and can’t receive them but is claimed by God or suffers death for it. A wrong set of theologians take the question into other matters and want to dominate there to get contrary results, non-evangelical, opportunistic.
Free will and eternal condemnation are central to the atheist’s dilemma. As it poses a challenge to the man of faith. For the skeptical, an all knowing God aware that most will, according to scripture, apparently be condemned to eternal pain, a form of injustice if it could be prevented and is not. Does Man really have free will? Luther thought not. Due to our sense of injustice we currently suffer the soft selling of eternal Hell, condemnation itself.
God who moves the will knows and decides who’s saved and who’s condemned. Despite this conundrum Luther retained faith, which Catholics consider deficient. God is God because he can do all things including that unique created dimension of reality in which man lives and decides freely, insofar as he exercises his intellect and doesn’t reduce himself to a brute.
My purpose is not to challenge Benedict XVI who remains aloof as to the ‘numbers’ of the condemned, rather to address what scripture insists is the reality of its wide path whether it’s perceived as “idiosyncratic and problematic”. How the creation played out we may be assured was not engineered by God who nevertheless moves all things including the will, and that some saints, Paul for one interject that God permitted all men to sin to display his glory. This sounds self serving. We may respond that God, who could have prevented the fall in the garden, instead allowed it to happen to display his infinite glory [Benedict displays his compassionate acumen on the issue of the majority to be condemned adding theological developments emerged that tried to show under what conditions non-Catholics could, in fact, behave like Catholics and still go to Heaven]. In this dilemma of salvation and condemnation Man bears the responsibility, and God the agent who enters our world as son and savior reveals the immensity of his ineffable love for us.
The Pope Emer . might have been busy also reading the 36 volume books on Divine Will by Luisa … might have tried to give answer to the questions raised by the atheist writer based upon those readings and revelation too ..
Good simple means as beginners on the Divine Will theme for many who might have similar questions including on efforts of Pope Francis to explicate the faith to bring more persons to greater understanding of same as his responsibility for these times –
https://benedictinesofdivinewill.org/uploads/3/4/3/2/34324596/drop-book-series.pdf
Dear Dr. Ramage, after a life of listening to self-proclaimed “atheists,” may I suggest that the great majority I have encountered do not so much reject the possibility of a Creator, but, when one listens to them, they question whether such a Creator cares about them and their miseries and trials. I believe this is the fulcrum for most “atheists'” rejection of God that has to be addressed by believers. In that sense, a profession of atheism is a front for a more existential question. I would like to hear you on this.
In my opinion your comment drives straight into the heart of the matter. I read The Rural Gentleman a few years ago. The central character is a priest and when he chances upon a very disturbed and spiritually adrift person, he makes a point similar to yours. There are so many troubled people but the church often works on the assumption that they will find the church, when in reality it is the gospel mission of the church to find them.
That’s why, dear Alice & dear T. M. Doran, every Catholic parish in the world has an active outreach harvesting in their neighbourhood; including an annual door knock, & a multi-age street ministry of praise and preaching, at least once a week. Followed up by cherishing friendship invites to family meals, etc., for those who respond positively. That’s why there are qualified bus-driver parishoners, who use parish buses to bring the youths and housebound people in to church functions.
Dear LORD, if only . . .
Atheists are by choice disposed to interpret scripture, Christian claims with skepticism. A mindset of their unwillingness to believe, which brings with it the responsibilities consistent with belief in God. Whereas the saints give witness to the urgency of the very beliefs atheists find incomprehensible in respect to justice. This is nothing new. Although what motivates the saint is their inner, living perception of the goodness of God as incompatible with evil. A consciousness of the purity of love, what is profoundly beautiful compared to the callous, ugliness of sin.
Some priests have said we cannot reject pure love. Their faith reflects what the saint has knowledge of. We don’t find the saints speaking lightly of judgment, the existence of Hell. Nor the pursuit of a holy life to please God and enter his heavenly kingdom. Good and evil are two stark realities to the saint, the lack of which underlies the great malaise the Church suffers accounting for the drift away from sincere practice, or any belief at all. Faith is a fire that urges us to seek the good of others. A gift that is given by our intercessory prayers and sacrifice.
Compare Benedict XVI to the current occupant of the Chair of Peter:
“On October 12, Pope Francis received a delegation from New Ways Ministry, which dissents from Catholic teaching on sexual morality. The meeting with a “diverse group of transgender, intersex, and ally Catholics, including a medical doctor who provides gender transition care,” lasted for 90 minutes and was not included on the Vatican’s list of papal audiences for the day.
“The group urged Pope Francis to move past the Church’s negative approach to gender-diverse people, and to encourage Church leaders to listen more attentively to the lives and faith of LGBTQ+ people,” according to New Ways Ministry.
Sister Jeannine Gramick, who cofounded the ministry, added:
I am grateful to Pope Francis that he was willing to listen to the experiences of intersex and transgender people. It is only by listening to stories of these individuals, as well as the individuals who care for and about them, that the Church will be able to fully hear the voice of the Holy Spirit calling the Catholic community to break out of old, ill-informed teachings and practices.
New Ways Ministry was the subject of a notification by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1999) and a statement by the US bishops (2011).
Pope Francis, however, praised Sister Gramick in a handwritten letter. In 2023, he met with Sister Gramick and other leaders of the group for 50 minutes.”
We can compare Peter.
But they may be two sides of the Modernist flip coin, advancing with two faces since the 1960s. The flip faces of Paul VI were so dramatic that people actually believed there were two men claiming to be Paul VI.
No Messiah can save others in God’s best design of creation of human but only with their own holiness and thus with their own life. A few finally merit eternal life as they discover Truth using God’s works understood as knowledge, effectively God not only reveals the Truth as if discovering but impart Hope to those holy, truthful minds/spirits before removing the death to live them among saints in paradise kept hidden to sinners by God’s live Magic.
Despite the appeals to “common ground” in the article, we also have the Ratzinger who was spurious elsewhere of natural law arguments due to the perception by modernity of its being historically conditioned, and that even Ratzinger scholar Tracey Rowland declares the Maritain strategy of proposing natural law in the form of liberal idioms as a half-century of failure.
There is also the reconciling of a benevolent deity with eternal, self-inflicted punishment being questioned by Christians such as David Bentley Hart and Larry Chapp, much less other secular “conversation partners”.
“. . the reconciling of a benevolent deity with eternal, self-inflicted punishment being questioned . .”
As Saint Paul instructs (e.g. in Galatians 5:11) – many discount ‘the offense of The Cross’.
Universalists such as Hart & Chapp and hordes of freemasons & others set aside the sad reality that many people baulk at The Cross of Christ. That is where the division occurs that can have a decisive impact on the destiny of their souls.
Like B16’s approach to Piergiorgio Odifreddi, they are attempting to be nicer than God has graciously revealed He is, and in so doing they profane the justice of GOD.
Let no one obscure or set aside what The New Testament has illuminated so clearly, under the guidance of The Holy Spirit of GOD.
“Save yourself from this corrupt generation!” exhorted Saint Peter (Acts 2:40).
Is it not incredibly naive to maintain that this applied then but does not apply to our generation, today.
Not only would that be naive but, in practice, it is a subtle incitement to sin.
Are we not instructed that to lead the little ones astray is a sure path to hell?
Always seeking to hear & lovingly follow King Jesus Christ; blessings from marty
“Truth is opposed to error, as health is to sickness”
Mgr Marcel Lefebvre